vbot

[link][more]

I am still receiving a lot of responses from my original post about KeyBank’s Free iPod promotion. Most of the responses are from happy new owners of iPod nanos. Then there are a few in my situation. It’s been months since I first signed up for the iPod promotion, and I haven’t received an iPod, a letter about my iPod, an email about my iPod… nothing. So finally I gave KeyBank a call - actually 3 calls - to try and remedy the situation. Of course, nobody had any idea of what to do… so my complaints fell on deaf ears. So I had given up - on the iPod and KeyBank’s customer service. That is, until today, when I received a 1099-misc in the mail for the value of an iPod that I never received. I was furious!! Mainly because I have already filed my taxes and don’t want the IRS to come question me later about some unreported income. I knew that KeyBank was sending 1099s for the value of the iPods, but I didn’t think that they would send me one even when never receiving anything! So, after a frustrating call to customer service, I learned that nobody has any authority to do anything, that there are no records of anything - including any iPod shipments or lack thereof - and that 1099 changes can only be made by the tax department… which of course wasn’t in. So, I’ll try again tomorrow and see if I can get any closer to obtaining either an iPod or a 1099 reversal! But one thing is for sure… as soon as the “probationary” period ends… I’m pulling my money out in a heartbeat! Advertisement: Home Insurance

“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

I jumped into my car, reached for my seatbelt and looked up at the campervan parked in front of me. The message on the back appeared to be hand-written, like someone had just dipped their finger in a can of paint. It read: I love every body. Yours is next. Taken with their humour, I scanned the remaining area for more information about who this person was. The print scrawled across the back window read: www.wickedcampers.com. Sometime later I spotted another wicked looking camper. Instantly recognising their trademark style, and eager for more wicked wit, I searched for the slogan and wasn’t disappointed: The liver is evil. It must be punished. Targeting those on a backpacker’s budget, the Wicked Campers image is reminiscent of the old VW Combi Vans. Each one is themed to give the van its own personality complete with a name derived from the hand-painted, colourful, quirky images adorning the vehicle. The wicked finishing touch: an original, irreverent and witty hand-written “message” on each van. This company has very cleverly tapped into the backpacker culture, and in doing so has skillfully created their own. By opting for outrageous antics Wicked Campers have built their marketing into their brand identity. This is a great illustration that marketing is no longer what you do to a brand after it’s built. To get mind space in today’s noisy marketplace, brands need to build marketing into their brand. Out of curiosity, I’ve since asked a number of people if they’ve seen the vans. Almost everyone I asked could recall having seen one. Now imagine if I had asked if they’d ever seen a (insert boring name of el cheapo rent-a-car company). Do you think they’d remember? Would you? Here’s a few samples from customers featured in their “Wicked Stories” collection: …We instantly became attached to both Bo Derek and Janice Joplin, the most colourful vans you could ever wish for! Having the opportunity to personalise the quotes on the back made them even more special! They truly were a home away from home, hosting many parties, games, feasts, crazy antics and some of the funniest moments of my life. I’m not sure if I’ll find anything funny again! …As we picked up our camper and headed to our house through the busy centre of Brisbane to collect our luggage, we were really shocked that every second car was honking at us. We started to worry that something was wrong with the car and we decided to stop at a petrol station to check the tyres – everything seemed OK…We arrived at the house and by the time we approached the car from the rear, we realized what was the reason for the blowing of horns – there was a great sign on the back asking, “HONK IF YOU ARE NOT WEARING UNDERWEAR”. We were laughing for almost 10 minutes, and then throughout the following 18 days every time we heard honking while being overtaken! …It once again has “Wicked” painted over the front (which causes every kid we drive past to shout “WICKED!” at the top of their lungs to us)… I cannot believe it! Before we even set off along the Great Ocean Road, we stop to collect our stuff from the hostel and there’s a guy taking a picture of the camper on his mobile… We picked up our Flintstones van in Melbourne and headed south along the Great Ocean Rd. We quickly discovered that having a Wicked Camper is a bit like being a celebrity as people (particularly the Japanese) would stop, stare and take photos of us and the van. We spent a wonderful first night camping by a beach with no-one else apart from Andy, me, the stars and a stack of VB! Could life possibly get anymore wonderful? Yes it could! The second night we had reached the 12 apostles and had decided to watch the sunset at this magnificent spectacle. We took a bottle of finest Australian sparkling wine and set up camp with a glorious sunset beginning. It was at this point that Andy got down on one knee and asked if I would like to be the future Mrs Linham. I could not picture a more perfect setting for us to get engaged (I did say yes by the way). After much embracing and kissing, and very little sunset watching, we headed back to our Wicked vans to spend our first night as the future Mr and Mrs Linham. The rest of the trip has been a bit of a blur, but who cares as we are so happy and are already planning the honeymoon…. Maybe a Wicked Camper Tour in NZ! Would you like wicked stories like that about your product? Or put another way… Want to Create a Sensation with Your Brand? I do. Which is one of the reasons I named my game, The Meet Market. Another reason I gave my game such a controversial name is because it’s integral to an important part of my mission – turning negatives into positives in a fun way. But I’m also acutely aware that using a play on words of a derogatory term to create a culture that’s the exact opposite is tricky. But let’s face it, Outrageous Idea = Risky = Scary. And all this adds up to freaking out the status quo who will try to convince you that you’ve lost your marbles. It’s fair to say that I struck a teeny bit of opposition to the name of my choice (read: big understatement). The conversation usually went something like this: “You’re not going to call it that are you?” “Ah…yep.” (insert groan and/or facial contortion) “Oh no. Oh dear. Oh gosh. Oh-me-oh-my.” While most people are just trying to look out for you, be careful who you listen to because the status quo may not be your customers (at least not initially). A few of the people who objected to the name were marketing professionals and advisors of various descriptions. But in the end I followed my gut. As I suspected would happen *customers love it*. They love that it’s cheeky and funny. Recently a 53-year-old customer told me that when she came across my website and saw the name of the game she said to herself: That’s fantastic, I’ve just got to be a part of that. Having a name that conjures up a rather unsavoury image, and wanting to create a totally opposite culture with my product and service, my presentation is critical. My image must convey “class” and “quality”, as well as playfulness and fun. Because of this, a lot of time and thought went into designing the look. It’s important that when people read the name they also see a playful, fun and ‘innocent’ image to counter the preconceived ‘unsavoury’ image. This approach is working because people get the joke instantly, and I get to witness this first-hand at the weekend markets. Most people break into a smile and feel compelled to say the name out loud. (A bit like the kids calling out “WICKED!”). They do this even mores so with the Frequent Flirter merchandise – few can pass my stall without pointing, laughing and saying the catchy phrase (another play on words) out loud. It’s a stack of fun for me watching the various different reactions; their facial expressions never cease to entertain me. Often it’s a look of disbelief accompanied by hand-over-mouth and inevitable giggle. Very often it stops them in their tracks. However, a misguided “stunt” can stop them in their tracks for all the wrong reasons. Being cheeky, daring, politically incorrect, or over-the-top can bring you recognition and renown – and throngs of adoring customers. But an outrageous idea, especially when it’s done to your product rather than being a part of your product can also bring you undone. Cheeky, Irreverent and Fun vs Offensive The lingerie brand Loveable got a taste of this recently when their new advertising campaign backfired. Former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins, Loveable’s new ambassador, was featured in bra and panties at a New Zealand airport. Nothing too outrageous – until you get to the caption: Feeling horny? No prizes for guessing what happened next. Yep, down she came! What it boils down to is that being cheeky or outrageous with your branding and marketing can be a stroke of genius, IF it’s a logical and comfortable fit with your brand, product, service, or identity – AND if it’s not offensive. I’m curious about their reasoning for using that caption, because it seems obvious to me that posing an overtly sexual question is a blatant mis-match with a brand that Hawkins herself describes as “cute, girly and fun”. Contrast this with an outrageously politically incorrect campaign that is now legendary in Australia – it’s a great example that even a very un-sexy product marketed in the right way can cause a sensation. All it takes is some creativity. While the initial uproar and opposition to this advertisement was intense, so was the support. The campaign, now in its third year, has become so popular that the face of it, former football star “Slamming” Sam Kekovich, along with Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), now “own” the Australia Day slot with their “address to the nation”. Like many, I was stunned when I first saw this commercial in 2005; I wasn’t even sure what I was watching. The second time I nearly wet myself laughing. Intrigued? Check it out here. Does it surprise you that taking a tongue-in-cheek swipe at all and sundry including the “soap-avoiding, pot-smoking, hippie vegetarians” in order to “defend” the great Aussie tradition of eating lamb got so much attention? I’ll bet that it doesn’t. The whole country was talking about it! Check out some of the comments on Benjamin Christie’s blog following the 2006 campaign. Who would have thought that a product as un-sexy as lamb could cause this kind of sensation? And was the proof in the pudding? You betcha. In 2005 lamb serves per week increased by 1.2 million. Given the success of the campaign, they were back at it in 2006 - and even more outrageous. In 2007 Sam takes a good-natured swipe at our American and English friends! Personally, I’m a fan of the cheeky, the irreverent and the outrageous. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but most people respond well to it – when it’s done well – because it takes us away from the mundane, the same ol’ same ol’. But it can be fine line between cheeky and offensive. The former can bring your brand fame and fortune, while the latter can knock you right on your you-know-what. Guidelines to Using Sensationalism If the cheeky route appeals to you, here’s a few points to consider: Ask yourself what your motive is. What’s your intention? What are you actually trying to say and achieve? What emotion are you trying to elicit from your potential customers? If your intent is one of goodwill AND it’s a logical and comfortable fit with your brand, product or service, chances are it will be a hit. If however there’s a hidden agenda, or the underlying tone of the message comes across as disrespectful (or preachy), it can backfire on you in a big way. Does your idea really work with your product and brand? (i.e., being cheeky or outrageous can work for a lot of different products and services, but just ensure the method you choose really fits.) Does it feel right for you? If you’re uncomfortable, it probably won’t work. Is it merely an attention-getting stunt? One-off stunts can get a lot of attention, but they’re usually very quick to fade. Think long-term. Think ahead: Weigh up the possible outcomes and long-term effect. What could go wrong, and how might you manage that? All that being said, I urge you to be edgy. Conformity is boring. Besides, it’s been done to death. Why not take a walk on the wild side and give your audience a little thrill. Be bold. Be bad. Be wicked even! You know it makes sense. P.S. Happy (belated) Australia Day to all our Aussie readers! marketing stunts, sensationalism in marketing, stand out from the crowd

I’ve been working in and around startups for most of my professional career.  A topic that often comes up in startups I’m advising or considering an investment in is:  “How will the big guys respond?”.  This is an interesting question and for all the obvious reasons, should not be dismissed as being irrelevant.  Too many startups answer the question on big competitors either inaccurately or inappropriately.  [Note:  I use the phrase “big guys” throughout this article as informal short-hand.  No gender bias is intended.]Instead of the common arguments of why one of the big guys (Google, Microsoft, Oracle or whoever) can’t/won’t compete with you, it’s sometimes helpful to answer a slightly different question and look at this through a different lens: Here is what BigCo would have to do to win in this market.  First, they’d have to <x>.  Then they’d have to <y>.  Finally, they’d have to <z>. You get the idea.  Instead of making decisions on behalf of the other party, let them decide on their own how hard it will be for BigCo to do x, y and z.  As a potential investor/advisor, I like to see the startup founders have an objective stance on competition and can accept that one thing those of us that have been around the block know a wee bit about is the realistic impact of competition from big players. Having said that, I came across an interesting article recently that should provide some comfort to startups.  It was interesting not because it revealed some startling fact, but because I was not all that surprisng.  The title of the article is “190,000 Office Live beta accounts left in limbo.”  It was penned by Phil Wainewright whose blog I follow regularly and who I believe has a reasonably balanced view on things.  If nothing else, at least his arguments are usually pretty objective.  The best I can tell, neither Phil nor I hate Microsoft (quite the contrary, I’ve been a customer for years, build on top of their platform and own Microsoft shares).   The thing that leapt out at me about this article is that the article didn’t leap out at me.  I have read about similar things all the time with big software companies – particularly those that deal with smaller customers.  This brings me to a couple of points I’d like to share with you:   When the ratio of the size of the software company and the size of its customers is very, very large (as in the case of most big businesses selling software/technology to small businesses), there’s the danger of a lapse in customer service.  In the aggregate, they do really well.  But, often, individual customers or groups of customers can get really, really screwed.   The reason for the above is that as a company gets larger another important ratio starts to slide downward.  This is the ratio of the number of people in the company that genuinely care about customers to the number of customers.     So, when you’re up against big competition, try to figure these ratios out.  What’s the company size / average customer size  and what’s the people that care about customers / total number of customers.  Of course, the latter is not easy to come by in terms of hard data, but simple looking at the world through this lens is helpful. I generally tend to believe that the fiercest competition for a startup often comes from other startups, but that doesn’t mean the big guys should be ignored.  Often, the most reliable source of competition eventually is the big companies.  This kicks in if and when you become moderately successful (and thereby the big guys start to care enough to come after you).   What are your thoughts?  Any war stories from the trenches in having gone up against competitors many, many times your size?  If so, would love to hear them and any other comments you might have. Did you like this article? If so, please share it with others.  digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us 

Not quite a hierarchy of needs, here's are four kinds of marketing effort, and they make up a cycle. No Effort This is the website that's not designed or promoted. It's the non-profit that doesn't have a development officer or the local stationery store that buys the cheapest sign they can find and it says "stationary." This is the hobbyist blog about my ferret or the nervous entrepreneur who spends months designing a business card so she'll never have to actually go on a sales call. I'm always surprised when I see good work that has no effort put into its marketing, because marketing doesn't require cash... just belief and effort. And if it's worth building, it's probably worth marketing. This category sort of matches the idea of the child that is too simple to even ask a question. Right Effort Here you'll find a website that is easy to use and builds a permission asset. One that buys AdWords and tests them. You'll discover a non-profit that has figured out how to write grant proposals that actually get funded. Or a blogger who writes with aplomb and knows how to promote his work. This is the restaurant with convenient hours or the airline with a frequent flyer program. Marketers spend much of their time focusing on this sort of effort and how to make it more effective. In fact, it might be your day job. Too Much Effort It's in the eye of the beholder of course, but there are certainly marketers who try too hard. They buttonhole innocent bystanders at trade shows, they have websites filled with popups, popunders, audio riffs and toll free numbers repeated over and over again. They spam people. One reason that many people have dismissed MultiLevel Marketing is because of a bad experience with someone who tried too hard. And we all know about particularly obnoxious non-profits that tried just a little too hard to convert us or raise money. No (Apparent) Effort The last level is awfully similar to the first one. That's the marketer who doesn't appear to try. The speaker who doesn't solicit engagements, or the consulting firm that doesn't have (or need) a salesforce. This is the one that is fascinating and overlooked. It takes confidence to market with No (Apparent) Effort. It's a zen thing, and it's attractive to many people because of the power it projects. We're drawn to someone who doesn't try too hard, who is booked enough to not need a booking. When Miles Davis performed with his back to the audience, some people were offended. Others were entranced by his cool. Graydon Carter just opened a restaurant in New York. No photos of the dining room, not even for the Times. The word PREVIEW on every page of the menu. He's trying so hard not to try, it shows. There's a market distinction here. Some people will buy from a gas station with no marketing because the station is in the right place at the right time. Many people will buy from someone who does marketing the right way and presses the right buttons. And yes, there are a few people who buy things from spam email or from obnoxious websites. There are many markets, though, where no (apparent) marketing is exactly what the prospect wants. Especially in business to business sales, or in certain media pitches, the less you try, the better you do. As this has become clear, businesses are getting better at marketing without marketing, at trying without (appearing to) try. Please don't blog this. It's a preview.

John Naisbitt’s Mind Set! is divided into two main parts tied together by his common theme of seeing the future. The first half of the book outlines eleven “mindsets” that the author has identified to help him better forecast the future and identify opportunities. Mindset #1 While many things change, most things remain constant The news and media would have us believe that everything is changing. The biggest, brightest, most compelling stories make it to the forefront. However, life goes on for the majority of people and things are pretty constant. Naisbitt counsels us to “distinguish between real and apparent change, basic shifts and fads, remembering that in the history of the world, most things remain constant.” Mindset #2 The future is embedded in the present Looking back it is easy to see how historical events shaped the future. For us today, we need to keep our eyes open and filter out the constant noise to identify what current events will really indicate future direction. Mindset #3 Focus on the score of the game Use sports as the model for determining the outcome of business and politician decisions. Once a game is over, you know the score. It is final and the winner is identified. In politics and even business, people will try to distort the outcome to make them look favorable. Don’t get distracted by rhetoric. Mindset #4 Understand how powerful it is not to have to be right Imagine how much more open you’ll be to new ideas and opportunities when you stop being so proud and stubborn! Mindset #5 See the future as a picture puzzle Piecing together these mindset ideas will help you better identify future trends. Mindset #6 Don’t get so far ahead of the parade that people don’t know you’re in it If your great idea is so far out there that it is impossible for people to understand, you’ll have a very slow adoption. By leading efforts of innovation, you need to keep your ideas close enough to the present that people can easily make the jump. Mindset #7 Resistance to change falls if benefits are real Your job as the leader is to clearly communicate the benefits of change. Once your audience internalizes these concepts, they’ll drop their defenses and accept your ideas. Mindset #8 Things that we expect to happen always happen more slowly Our expectations always seem to outpace the implementation timeline of those great ideas. Naisbitt states: “almost all change is evolutionary, not revolutionary.” Mindset #9 You don’t get results by solving problems but by exploiting opportunities Trying to solve the problem restricts your ability to think in the bigger picture. You’re stuck fixing the problems of the past instead of seeking the opportunities of tomorrow. Mindset #10 Don’t add unless you can subtract Determine what is really important and if new issues arise, drop other things on your plate. Failure to keep the proper load will lead to under-performance in all areas. Mindset #11 Don’t forget the ecology of technology New technologies should enable us. When something new is introduced, we should ask ourselves how things will improve or get worse. “What new opportunities does it present?” Part Two The second half of the book uses these mindsets to look at the future direction of our society as a whole, and specific regions like China and Europe. Niasbitt forecasts the continued rise of China and the “mutually assured decline” in Europe. Throughout the book, the author includes both historical and current events to help define and prove his points. Joe’s Recommendation Buy a Copy – I particularly enjoyed the first half of Mind Set! where Naisbitt outlines his eleven mindsets. He artfully weaves personal stories and history together in discussing his points. I’d buy the book for his mindsets alone but if you like history and current events, the entire book is a relevant read as you look to the future. Buy Mind Set! from Amazon.com. Joe is currently reading: Mind Set! by John Naisbitt

Donald J. Trump is a graduate of the Wharton School of Finance and started his business career in an office he shared with his father. In August of 2006, Mr. Trump was voted by BusinessWeek magazine as “the world’s most competitive businessperson.” In New York City, the Trump signature is synonymous with the most prestigious of addresses, among them the world-renowned Fifth Avenue skyscraper, Trump Tower, the Trump International Hotel & Tower, voted the best U.S. Hotel by Conde Nast Traveler, Trump World Tower at the United Nations Plaza, 40 Wall Street, and Trump Park Avenue. In a departure from his real estate acquisitions, Mr. Trump and the NBC Television Network are partners in the ownership and broadcast rights for the three largest beauty competitions in the world: the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA Pageants. He is also the star and executive producer of the hit television series, “The Apprentice,” which has received national and worldwide attention. In the summer of 2004, his radio program on Clear Channel made its debut and broke all syndication records. Mr. Trump has authored seven books, all of which became bestsellers. Trump Magazine was launched in 2004, Trump University Online in 2005, and the Donald J. Trump licensing program. In 2006, GoTrump.com, an online travel agency, made its debut, as did Trump Productions in Los Angeles. Question: If you, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Herb Kelleher and Larry Ellison got marooned on a desert island, who would end up running the place and who would end up as dinner? Answer: We would find a way to order in and have a productive meeting at the same time. Question: How long would Larry and Sergei, the co-founders of Google, last on your show? Answer: That would depend on whether they were good team players and if they had an original idea or two. Question: Would you fire your son or daughter? Answer: Yes, if they deserved it, but fortunately they are well prepared for their positions, so I doubt they would ever merit being fired. Question: What do you do to chill out? Answer: Playing golf provides me with my version of chilling out, plus I develop golf courses, so it’s a productive way to spend my chill time. Question: At the end of our life, what do you want to be remembered for? Answer: As a builder who has enhanced the cities and communities where I have built and/or developed. Question: What’s the difference between the Donald Trump on “The Apprentice” and the Donald Trump in every day business meetings? Answer: Business meetings are more about negotiation skills whereas “The Apprentice” falls into the job interview or audition category. I have business meetings with people who are looking to do business, not people who are looking for a job. My attitude on “The Apprentice” is as an employer looking at possible future employees. I don’t look to mold any of my business associates. Question: If you could apprentice with anyone in history, who would it be? Answer: My father was a great mentor. He’d be hard to replace. Question: Not many people make billions, lose billions, and then make billions all over again. How did you pull this off? Answer: To me it was a blip, not a catastrophe. I knew I was destined to succeed, and I kept focused on that belief. I’m very tenacious...and I don’t give up. Question: If you graduated from Wharton in 2006 instead of in the 1960s, what industry would you go into? Answer: Real estate. I love it and it still exists as a career and as a viable passion. Question: What do you think of two guys in a garage showing amateur videos selling out for $1.7 billion? Answer: I’d say they had a great idea—my hat’s off to them. Question: TV is TV, real life is real life: What’s the most important real-life advice you can give to an entrepreneur? Answer: You have to love what you do. Without passion, great success is hard to come by. An entrepreneur will have tough times if he or she isn’t passionate about what they’re doing. People who love what they’re doing don’t give up. It’s never even a consideration. It’s a pretty simple formula.

One of the single most frequently asked questions that we get from new Google AdWords advertisers is the following: Where is the traffic?  Everybody knows that Google gets ton’s of traffic so why is it that lots of new Google AdWords advertisers fail?  We did a radical test last week to get to the bottom of what is going on.  We had been running a couple of very successful campaigns for one website for over one year.  So, here is what we did. We paused the campaigns on our existing Google AdWords account and created a new Google AdWords account.  We then launched the identical campaigns on a new Google AdWords account.  Here are the results that we got after the first week.  They are nothing short of devastating!  Take a look at three Ad Groups and check out the results before and after moving them into the new AdWords account.   Our new Google AdWords account got crushed!  Above I am sharing the results from three Ad Groups before and after the test.  Our average daily click count basically dropped to zero and we got hardly any impressions.  However, nothing changed!  In total, we moved over 200 Ad Groups across 10 campaigns and the results are the same across the board.  Here are the results at the aggregate account level.  Lets remember that NOTHING has changed except moving the campaigns from an existing Google AdWords account to a new Google AdWords account.  If this is not shocking, then tell me what is. So, what can explain this? The only difference is History! In this experiment, everything was kept constant except moving campaigns from an existing Google AdWords Account to a new Google AdWords account.  And, when you move accounts, the only thing that you lose is history. Why is history so important? In Google, everything is based on the Quality Score which is a combination of how your ads have been performing over time relative to ads of the competition. Ads with a higher quality score will get surfaced more often and have a dramatically lower required bid minimum.  When we drilled into the new Google AdWords account we saw bid minimums that far exceeded the maximum bids that we used previously.  So, if your account has no history, you might have to spend extra to establish a good history by bidding high just to get started. We also know that ads with a higher click-through-rate will have a higher quality score and that ads that start appearing in a higher position will have a higher click-through-rate because people click on more links that appear higher on the page.  So, once again, new Advertisers will have to spend extra to quickly drive up the Quality Score. I have long been hypothesizing about a “Doom Loop” and a “Money Loop.”  New AdWords users end up in the “Doom Loop” if they do not start out very strongly.  Initially, it pays to overpay and overbid just to rapidly earn a higher quality score which will increase your click-through-rate and lower the minimum required bid for many of the keywords that you want your ads to surface for.  By starting out strong, new advertisers can get into the “Money Loop” (vastly more impresseions, higher CTRs and lower bid prices).  However, what I never knew is that new Google AdWords advertiser get crushed if they just follow what existing Google AdWords advertiers are already doing.  To displace them, it seems takes a far more aggressive bidding strategy than what the entrenched players are already doing. I would love to hear your thoughts on this especially if you have any other possible explanations for what might explain the horrible results with the new AdWords account. 

Swedish maxim: There is no bad weather, just bad clothing.

Most markets are busted open by one successful leader. Burton in snowboards, Henry Ford in cars, the iPod in mp3 players. It sure seems, for a while, that the leader can do no wrong. Market share is high, the market grows, and then, oof, the leader fades. It looks a bit like this: The leader attracts newcomers to the market. Both new users and new competitors. The competitors offer new choices, alternative pricing and distribution models and just plain old choice. Unless there is a significant external barrier to change (like the iTunes store or the Windows distribution monopoly), then the leader appears to fade. At one point, there were more than 2,000 car companies in the US. There are several lessons available for marketers here. First, if you bust open a market, don't expect to own it forever. Second, if you can, invest heavily in some sort of external effect that creates a natural monopoly and gives people a really good reason to stick (beyond the fact that you're the leader). And third, if you're not the leader, realize that: a. you're not going to replace them and b. being just like them isn't the way to grow. As a market grows, the 'scraps' left over from the leader can add up to a huge piece of market share. And then, over time, a new leader may emerge.

Part 1: Micah sends us to this report, just out a few moments ago: Pew: 14 Million Online Political Activists in U.S. Today | Personal Democracy Forum.23% of campaign internet users has either posted their own political commentary to the web via a blog, site or newsgroup (8%); forwarded or posted someone else's commentary (13%); created political audio or video (1%); forwarded someone else's audio or video (8%). "That translates into about 14 million people who were using the 'read-write Web' to contribute to political discussion and activity," the study's authors Lee Rainie and John Horrigan write.Part 2: Jill is inviting a few dozen non profits to a non-profit only seminar I'm doing in February. We've already got confirmed reservations from 5 of the top 30 orgs in the US, including executive directors from a couple of them. If you'd like to be considered, please drop Jill a note and tell her why.

If you manage, work for or just root for a non-profit, I hope you'll take a look at THE 59 SMARTEST ORGS ONLINE. We worked with NetSquared and GetActive and came up with a list that highlights 59 really smart non-profits and what they're doing online. And yes, you can learn from these tactics even if you're a for-profit organization... we're now seeing great marketing ideas that move in a direction we're not used to. Here's a preview of the top five (you can vote if you click through). It's not a popularity contest, of course, because everyone is doing really good work. Feel free to vote for any cause that has a technique or approach you'd like to highlight. plex4388

The article in the Times didn't set out to say something vitally important about marketing, but it did. In starting off a profile it says, "For the past couple of years Jun Kaneko, the ceramic artist..." It didn't say "a ceramic artist." No. It said, "the ceramic artist". The entire tone of the piece changes. It's so much better to be a 'the' not an 'a'. Which are you? I don't think it's a trivial distinction. In fact, I'd argue that it's worth an enormous amount of your time and your budget to focus on becoming the.

The web changed my life. I can't live without wikipedia or Google. But ultimately, I'm disappointed. Almost every day, the web lets me down. What do web users do for a living? What do we get paid to do that makes it worth giving us a web browser? Me, I make connections. I take disparate ideas and connect them in (hopefully) useful ways. Others do it with people, or cash instead of ideas. But we're all connectors. Tim O'Reilly coined the term Web 2.0. It is a bit controversial, but basically it describes a generation of web pages that go beyond the flat HTML of the original Web. Web 2.0 pages encourage community and user-generated content. Web 3 is the brainchild of Tim Berners-Lee, largely credited for inventing the world wide web in the first place. It's more commonly called the Semantic Web. The idea is, to quote Lee, "I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize." I'll get in trouble for this simple shorthand, but it's data about data. Websites that are smart about what they are and what they contain. But what's it for? I mean it's very audacious and powerful, but why? And what drives it to work? The opportunities of the semantic web are limitless, and I can't wait. But that's not Web4. Web4 is what I'm really waiting for. And it's entirely possible that Web4 will get here before the semantic web even though Web 3 makes it work a lot better. We start with this: Ubiquity Identity Connection We need ubiquity to build Web4, because it is about activity, not just data, and most human activity takes place offline. We need identity to build Web4, because the deliverable is based on who you are and what you do and what you need. And we need connection to build Web4, because you're nothing without the rest of us. Web4 is about making connections, about serendipity and about the network taking initiative. Some deliberately provocative examples: I'm typing an email to someone, and we're brainstorming about doing a business development deal with Apple. A little window pops up and lets me know that David over in our Tucscon office is already having a similar conversation with Apple and perhaps we should coordinate. I'm booked on a flight from Toledo to Seattle. It's cancelled. My phone knows that I'm on the flight, knows that it's cancelled and knows what flights I should consider instead. It uses semantic data but it also has permission to interrupt me and tell me about it. Much more important, it knows what my colleagues are doing in response to this event and tells me. 'Follow me' gets a lot easier. Google watches what I search. It watches what other people like me search. Every day, it shows me things I ought to be searching for that I'm not. And it introduces me to people who are searching for what I'm searching for. As a project manager, my computer knows my flow chart and dependencies for what we're working on. And so does the computer of every person on the project, inside my team and out. As soon as something goes wrong (or right) the entire chart updates. I'm late for a dinner. My GPS phone knows this (because it has my calendar, my location, and the traffic status). So, it tells me, and then it alerts the people who are waiting for me. I visit a blog for the first time. My browser knows what sort of stories I am interested in and shows me highlights of the new blog based on that history. I can invest in stocks as part of a team, a team that gains strength as it grows in size. Here's Rikard's riff on how the iPhone could be more like Web4. I'm about to buy something from a vendor (in a store with a smart card or online). At the last minute, Web4 jumps in and asks if I want it cheaper, or if I want it from a vendor with a better reputation. Not based on some gamed system, but based on what a small trusted circle believes. My PDA knows I'm going to a convention. Based on my email logs, it recommends who I ought to see while I'm there--because my friends have opted in to our network and we're in sync. I can fly to the CES for half price, because Web4 finds enough of us that we can charter a flight. I don't have to wait for Rickie Lee Jones to come to town. Sonos knows who the Rickie Lee fans are, and makes it easy for us to get together and initiate a concert... we book her, no scalpers necessary. I don't get company spam any more ("fill out your TPS reports") because whenever anyone in my group of extended colleagues highlights a piece of corporate spam, it's gone for all of us. But wait, it's also smart enough that when a recipient highlights a mail as worth reading, it goes to the top of my queue. If, over time, the system senses (from how long I read the mail, or that I delete it, or that I don't take action) that the guy's recommendations are lame, he loses cred. Sure, it sounds a bit like LinkedIn. But it's not. LinkedIn tends to make networks that are sprawling and weak. Web4 is about smaller, far more intense connections with trusted colleagues and their activities. It's a tribe. You don't have to join a tribe. But if you did, would you be more successful? Unlike Web 3, we don't need every single page in the world to be 'compliant.' What we need is: an email client that is smart about what I'm doing and what my opted in colleagues are doing. Once that gains traction, plenty of vendors will work to integrate with it. a cell phone and cell phone provider that is not just a phone. a word processor that knows about everything I've written and what's on the web that's related to what I'm writing now. moves by Google and Yahoo and others to make it easy for us to become non-anonymous, all the time, everywhere we go. This stuff creeps some people out. The thing is, privacy is an illusion. You think you have privacy, but the video surveillance firms and your credit card company disagree. If we're already on camera, we might as well get some benefits from it. If we choose. I think it's fascinating that Web4 is coming from the edges (we see all sorts of tribal activities popping up in blogs, communities, rankings, Digg, etc.) as opposed to from the center. Web 2.0 happened in largely the same way. Even online, big organizations seem to have the most trouble innovating in ways that change the game.

My most recent computer purchase was from Dell. I went through their online computer configurator and purchased a model number E520 with the E6400 Intel Dual Core processor. I made the conscious decision to buy this processor over some older versions that Dell was also selling. When my order arrived, I checked the packing slip and saw everything was in order except for this line describing the processor: DIM E520, P4, E6400 (2.13GHZ),HT As you can see, parts of the description matched what I had ordered: DIM E520, P4, E6400 (2.13GHZ),HT Great. But wait a minute. The other parts of the description used specific terms that identify older Intel processors: DIM E520, P4, E6400 (2.13GHZ), HT P4 could be a Pentium 4 which is a much older processor. The HT could be Intel’s older HyperThreading technology. So there I sat staring at my packing slip wondering, “Did Dell trick me? Is this really an old processor or a new one? Why is part of the name what I ordered but part of it not?” These are too many questions to be asking. I should have received my order, glanced at the packing slip and had no questions. I should have gone straight to opening the box. Instead, I was worried. The excitement I felt upon my purchase arriving had completely faded, and now, I was faced with the possibility of returning a computer I didn’t order. Not only that, but it would probably be less of a hassle if I returned it unopened. This story doesn’t end here. It expands to calls with customer service and even an online chat. Nevertheless, this story should never have even started. The packing slip should have the same wording as the product ordered. Use the same keywords, capitalization, and format whenever you mention the same products. Discrepancies lead to fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the customer. These feelings lead to customer service support that you, as the company, then have to fund. Keep it simple. Avoid the post-sales support hassle by simply being consistent in your product naming and descriptions.

We are seeking a talented, motivated and entrepreneurial minded programmer with the following skills: Required Skills: Strong knowledge of web and internet technologies 4+ years programming experience, with 2+ years PHP Thorough understanding of object oriented programming Thorough understanding of database concepts and principles (specifically with exposure to MySQL 4.x) Knowledge of a UNIX type operating system (preferably Linux) Apache Source control with SVN or CVS Thorough understanding of HTML/CSS Knowledge and practical experience with JavaScript Valuable Skills: AJAX / Async procedure calls Smarty templates Excellent organization and time-management abilities Please send resume and salary history/expectations to jobs (at) varien.com

Here’s a collection of podcasts about marketing from Marketing Voices, a weekly podcast that discusses how social media is affecting marketing strategy and practices, by my buddy Jennifer Jones. There’s lots of great information for entrepreneurs and small-business owners in these podcasts. Seth Godin, marketing expert, author. States that small is the new big. People need to target audiences of 4 not 400. Told marketers he feels they have the biggest opportunity in at least thirty years to make an impact given social media. Robert Scoble, blogger and vice president of media development for PodTech. Talks about how blogging has evolved and why it is important for corporations to blog today. Peter Rojas, co-founder and editor of Engadget, one of the most popular blogs on technology today. Discusses the publication, its strategy and how to best contact editors for the publication. Phillip Bodzenta, director of global communications for Coke. Describes how Coke used bloggers to build audience during the World Cup. Shows pictures of bloggers at the World Cup. Sharon Wienbar, managing director, Scale Venture Partners (formerly BA Venture Partners) on what is hot/ not in social media venture investing. Pete Blackshaw, chief marketing officer of Nielsen Buzzmetrics, talks about how to measure social media. Steve Rubel, senior vice president of Edelman Public Relations. Speaks to how social media is impacting the practice of public relations. Dick Costello, chief executive officer of Feedburner. He speaks about how to get blogging and podcasting content is found and distributed. Bill Kircos, head of consumer and enterprise media for Intel. Describes how Intel implements social media programs, most specifically, podcasting. Kelly Wagman, head of customer relationship marketing for Juniper Networks. Talks about how Juniper used social media to build a community. Ross Mayfield, CEO of Socialtext, a wiki company. Describes wikis and how they are best used in marketing. The entire collection of Marketing Voices is here. There’s also a collection about entrepreneurship here. And this is my interview with Jennifer.

A strange thing happens when we have too many choices: often we make no decision at all. Consumer research shows that providing too much choice will reduce sales. In an often cited example from a psychologist at Columbia University, a display table of jams was setup at a gourmet food shop. On Day 1, six flavors were displayed; on Day 2, 30 different flavors. Although the display of 30 flavors attracted more attention, shoppers were only one-tenth as likely to make a purchase. Faced with multiple options - we face paralysis by analysis.    More choice =  less sales. When I’m ask to provide critiques of people’s sites one of the biggest crimes I see is the presence of too many options for a product that is unknown. When a customer is first being introduced to your product - don’t give them 10 flippin’ options to choose from. Don’t even give them 2 options! Point them in ONE direction. MarketingExperiments.com recently discussed the pros and cons of having choice on a website. According to a seminar they gave in October, 2006: Too many choices fragment a prospect’s attention. In a split test, we simplified from 3 columns to 1, the subscription process from 2 pages to 1, and reducing the number of subscription options from 3 to 2 resulted in conversion rate increasing 42% and revenues more than doubled. Sorry folks but stop with the flippin options. When I want to buy a Mac Book, I can go to Apples site and see my 3 options upfront. I know Apple, I trust their name. I worship Steve Jobs. Apple does not have to sell me with copy. At their website - I see my 3 choices and I pick the one I like best. Apple lays out clearly for me. Their choices are labeled White and Black. Thank you Steve!  But when a customer visits your small business website, don’t present ANY options until they’re further down your sales copy and have learned a thing or two about your product. When I arrive at a site like “Larry’s Handy Sprunckets” and see 3 links on the top or left menu for the: Basic Spruncket Advanced Spruncket Ultra Spruncket I turn into one confused consumer. Screw you Larry. Stop wasting my time with all these options and just tell me what a darned Spruncket is! A better way for a small business to present it’s option is to follow the format we use on this site www.SilvaUltraMindSystem.com. We’re selling a meditation program. It requires a long piece of copy because it does not have a big brand name. But once the visitor comes to the end of the copy…they see this: Each option is labeled clearly. If you want to try this out - go for the free online course. If you can’t travel to a seminar, buy the home course. If you can attend a seminar - click here to sign up. The description and picture help add meaning. The user is guided into one of 3 paths….AFTER they have read long copy selling on the benefits of learning the Silva System. Remember - less options will almost always lead to more sales. One final example….I want you to visit the various Internet marketing sites by well known gurus. You’ll notice that none of these guys run e-commerce super-stores selling multiple different products. Instead they build a separate site for each and every product.  Similarly, we keep two separate sites for our Conversion Tactics Book and our Adwords System Exposed Book. Stay simple - limit choices. And keep the visitor moving down a linear path to your sale.

Ben points us to: Hee-Haw Marketing: HURRICANE KOHLS!. The message isn't that Kohl's doesn't care, Kohl's has lousy management or Kohl's is messy. The message is that with 60 million camera phones in use, we notice.

So, Stan Sigman, the CEO and President of Cingular, is at the top of his game. He makes millions of dollars a year (not counting bonuses), he runs the biggest wireless company in the country and he's the boss. If you watch the Apple keynote speech, though, Stan sure could use some help. He appears at about 1:34 into the presentation. He's dressed all wrong. Not buttoned down enough to be a CEO, not casual enough for the Valley. And his jacket fits funny. Sort of like he's at his son-in-law's second wedding. Stan gives his talk from 3 x5 index cards, which he holds awkwardly on stage. And he doesn't really say anything. One could argue that you can be a great CEO without having a clue how to speak in public. But why not either get better at it or send someone else in your place? If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well, and I think the standards for a multimillionaire CEO announcing a major new venture ought to be pretty high.

Inspired by this post, three years ago: One Or and the other Getting an MBA Keeping your promises Being board certified Looking patients in the eye Policies Judgment Buying an expensive front loader Giving renovation clients an honest estimate Having a fancy building Hiring a nice receptionist Putting a new logo on the planes Cleaning the peanut butter off the seat tray Spending $100 million on special effects Leaving the ads off the non-skippable coming attractions on the DVD Having a new POS computer Waiving the late fee because of a snowstorm Offering the lowest rate for a cell phone Not tricking customers with a bait and switch Hiring expensive executives Firing the ones that don't grow and change Moving the call center overseas Answering the phone after one ring Using a state-of-the-art chipset Designing the device so it is easy to use Hiring a brilliant tax lawyer Doing your books in a way that's transparent to employees and investors Making a lot of money Donating a lot of money (quietly) Putting on a conference Taking a risk and making the conference interesting Making the world's best chocolate Charging way more than the competition Having a custom Wordpress blog with bells and whistles Writing stuff people want to read Having contrary opinions Expressing them with kindness, respect and attribution Making it to the top of the heap Listening to the people on their way up Sucking up to the boss Respecting the doorman Designing a six page spreadsheet for strategic analysis Having the guts to cancel the product or shut the division Having a great idea Sticking your neck out

The other day, I heard a parent wistfully point out that kids never act just the way they say they will in all those parenting books. "What to Expect?" Not really. Sort of like snowflakes, they're all different. Organizations are like that, but worse. Or better. There's never been a marketing problem that turned out just the way the book said it will. That's what makes it interesting. Sure, there's a science. There are best practices that, more often than not, pay off. Sort of like not giving a toddler vodka... it's just a good idea. But the art of management is in understanding that all problems are different, and that your intuition and insight are the key. Would you have it any other way?

I heard from a disappointed reader today, wondering why I bother. He said that I don't say anything new, that it's obvious, that everyone already gets this stuff. Then David sent me this note from Northwest. When you click through to take advantage of their invitation, of course it leads you to a totally blank form... so much for being a valued customer. And then I hear about Prudential. Apparently, they've just agreed to pay $100,000,000 for the naming rights to the new hockey arena in Newark. Huh? $5 million a year for the name of a hockey arena? The problem with marketing isn't that there isn't enough money to spend. The problem is that the people who are spending it are sometimes lazy, selfish, committee-centric, confused or scared. They know better. Of course they do. They just need to be reminded sometimes.

Steve Jobs got a lot of press for his recent reinvention of the cellphone. The thing about the iPhone is that it doesn't really re-invent the cellphone. Mostly, it mashes a cellphone together with a few other devices (doesn't mean I don't want one). The thing about the iPhone is that it is designed to better connect users to the network. You can check your voicemail in a random access way, like email, for example. But what it doesn't do is actually re-invent the very thing that makes cellphones magical: how you connect with other people. Here's a few things a reinvented cellphone might be able to do: Let me leave voice mail for groups of people all at once. Let me initiate conference calls with groups of people with just one directory entry. Let me call friends based on where they are at a given moment. Initiate calls with strangers based on their web of relationships (Facebook style) or their physical proximity and status. If there are friends of friends in the airport while I'm waiting, let me see them! Talk to them? Put a dating site into a phone. Pictures and status and location and boom, you can talk. Allow marketers to pay money to interact with consumers who opt in, based on needs, location or just plain boredom. Let me queue up people who want to talk with me and work my way through the list in a way that works for both of us.